Paralegal Certification PrepTorts and Property LawMedium
A construction company is demolishing an old building in a densely populated urban area. Despite taking standard precautions, a piece of debris unexpectedly flies off the site and injures a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. The pedestrian sues the construction company. What legal theory would most likely apply, even if the company exercised reasonable care?
- ANegligence
- BStrict liability
- CBattery
- DIntentional infliction of emotional distress
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. Strict liability
Demolition in a populated area is often considered an abnormally dangerous activity. For such activities, strict liability applies, meaning the company can be held liable for harm even if they took reasonable precautions and were not negligent.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Negligence would require a breach of the duty of care, which is specifically stated as potentially not present here ('even if the company exercised reasonable care').
- C. Battery requires intentional harmful or offensive physical contact, which was not the company's intent.
- D. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct with intent to cause severe emotional distress.
Strict Liability
Liability without fault, meaning a party can be held responsible for damages even if they did not act negligently or with intent to harm. Often applies to abnormally dangerous activities or defective products.
- No need to prove fault (negligence or intent).
- Applies to abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting, wild animals).
- Also applies to defective products in product liability cases.
Memory trick: Strictly No Negligence Intent.